twin, I'm sure there's an exception in there to permit spam from illegal aliens or similar group. After all, Davis doesn't sign a bill nowadays unless he can pander to SOMEone.

[ September 23, 2003, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

You are correct, beach. The full court unanimously ruled that the 3-judge panel was incorrect in their legal reasoning, because, as I've explained this before, the election was a state issue, pursuant to California's Constitution. Unfortunately, too many here didn't care, as long as the recall was stopped.

Essentially such folks have no problems with federal courts making erroneous decisions, so long as the decision sits well with them. I have been opposed to this recall from the beginning. I do not believe it ever should have been implemented. However, I also believe the 3-judge panel's decision was wrong. Their decision meant no recall, but to me, it was more important that they stay out of it altogether.

Interestingly, the 11-member court that ruled today was composed of 8 Democrats, several appointed by Clinton and Carter. The fact they slapped down the 3-judge panel's decision indicates how erroneous that preliminary decision actually was.

I won't hold my breath, however, for many others here to agree.

I agree, MIB, even if the per curiam opinion didn't cite to Coalition for Economic Equality v. Wilson as I'd said it would. But their reasoning was the same, just as you've said. The original 3-judge panel was all wrong, on all the issues. The only thing bad about their being overruled by the en banc court was that it denied the SCOTUS the chance to publicly rebuke the 3 judges for their gross misunderstanding - and petulant misrepresentation! - of Bush v. Gore. They left that job to their colleagues in the Ninth Circuit.

Well, a great thing that these judges ruled according to the law, which is more than can be said for SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore. You heard it from me, a liberal/progressive.

I thought I'd draw you out, FT. How then, to explain the 3-judges' reliance upon BvG, however insincere that reliance was? Answer: it's red and swims in the sea.

Did they see fit to abide by the FL Supreme Courts ruling when they were interpreting them in a politically correct manner? What use is the FL Supreme Court if it does not interpret FL election laws made by the FL legislature?